Hmm, I think that you really have to give credit where it's due here. I'm not sure we would have seen the turnaround without him having some time for some remedial work. Even without the swing, he managed to be a lot better with his line, especially to the left handers.

Hmm, I think that you really have to give credit where it's due here. I'm not sure we would have seen the turnaround without him having some time for some remedial work. Even without the swing, he managed to be a lot better with his line, especially to the left handers.

No doubt he returned as an improved bowler but he simply did not deserve to be dropped due to one bad match particularly when he came off a successful tour to India, IMHO. It appeared to me a case of scapegoating him for the loss just because he looks so **** when he's being hammered. The man had 160 wickets @ 28 at more than 4 wpm prior to the series and he really deserves more than one match of bad bowling to be dropped.

Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams

Originally Posted by GIMH

The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

If the plan after the first Test really was to just take Johnson out, have him work on his action and his rhythm for a couple of weeks and then bring him back for the third Test no matter what, then I think you do have to give the selectors some credit for it. I think it just sort of worked out that way though. Johnson didn't know he was playing for sure until the morning of the game (so he says anyway) and if Australia had won by an innings in Adelaide and Bollinger had taken ten wickets, I highly doubt Johnson would've played the third.

Equally, I don't believe for a second that "Johnson was always going to be rested at Adelaide." There's no way he was sitting out if he scored a hundred and took five in each innings at Brisbane, for example.

I think it's fairly apparent that the selectors panicked when he didn't bowl well in Brisbane, then panicked again after his replacements didn't fare any better in Adelaide, brought him back for Perth and put the best and biggest spin on it possible to hide the fact that they really had no idea and were changing their minds on a daily basis.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

No doubt he returned as an improved bowler but he simply did not deserve to be dropped due to one bad match particularly when he came off a successful tour to India, IMHO. It appeared to me a case of scapegoating him for the loss just because he looks so **** when he's being hammered. The man had 160 wickets @ 28 at more than 4 wpm prior to the series and he really deserves more than one match of bad bowling to be dropped.

But....how do we know if he would have performed had he not been dropped and took the time to rectify his technique a bit in the nets?